Was the reformation bound to happen ?

[elvisman]

“Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian”

…Cardinal Ratzinger

“Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.
On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery (non-Catholic), are not Churches in the proper sense.”
- Dominus Iesus**, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger**

Yup - you totally misunderstand his words . . .

 

[elvisman]

… LOL!
You let your slip show.

And you let your*** ignorance***** show.**
I challenged you no less than FOUR TIMES on this thread to show us some kind of documented evidence to supposrt the following falsehoods that you purported to be true - and you couldn’t even defend ONE:

Before the Reformation . . .
**1. The “papacy” created false doctrines “for itself”.
2. There was “no true doctrine”.
3. ALL the leadership in the Church was corrupt.
4. The Church decreed the selling of indulgences.

Not even one. That’s a pretty pathetic record for somebody who claims he is telling the truth and compares Luther to Christ.
I said it before and I’ll say it again, my anti-Catholic friend - you’ve been exposed . . .

 

[Rolla]

“Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.
On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery (non-Catholic), are not Churches in the proper sense.”
- Dominus Iesus**, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger**

Yup - you totally misunderstand his words . . .

And you can’t prove a word of any of these proclamations and neither can your magisterium.

 

[Rolla]

First of all - WHO is name-calling? I didn’t call anybody ANY name.

Secondly - Indulgences were sold by individuals like Johann Tetzel - NOT the Church. If you don’t know your history, I suggest you do some studying.

**Lastly - sho me the decree, edict, declaration or any other document proving this “historical **fact” . . .

It’s a matter of the foundation of the Reformation by Martin Luther. What gives with you?

 

[1voice]

And you let your*** ignorance***** show.**
I challenged you no less than FOUR TIMES on this thread to show us some kind of documented evidence to supposrt the following falsehoods that you purported to be true - and you couldn’t even defend ONE**:**

Before the Reformation . . .
**1. The “papacy” created false doctrines “for itself”.
2. There was “no true doctrine”.
3. ALL the leadership in the Church was corrupt.
4. The Church decreed the selling of indulgences.

Not even one. That’s a pretty pathetic record for somebody who claims he is telling the truth and compares Luther to Christ.
I said it before and I’ll say it again, my anti-Catholic friend - you’ve been exposed . . .

Is name calling an acceptable practice in this forum?

 

[Rolla]

Is name calling an acceptable practice in this forum?

It is for some especially this person. It continues on without reprimand or further incident.

 

[elvisman]

Is name calling an acceptable practice in this forum?

It is for some especially this person. It continues on without reprimand or further incident.

I’ll issue one more challenge:
What name did I call ANYONE?

Answer: Nothing.
Getting overly defensive when challenged to provide proof only shows that you have none.

 

[elvisman]

It’s a matter of the foundation of the Reformation by Martin Luther. What gives with you?

So it should be easy for you to provide the decree, declaration, mandate, encyclical or ANY other documented proof that the CHURCH ordered the selling of indulgences - don’tcha think?

STILL waiting . . .

 

[elvisman]

And you can’t prove a word of any of these proclamations and neither can your magisterium.

I certainly can:

Matt. 18:18 (Jesus to his Church)
"Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

John 16:12-15** (Jesus to his Church)**
***"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. ***
**But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. *****He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. ***
Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. "

**Luke 10:16 (Jesus to his Church) **
**"Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." **

1 Tim. 3:15 (St. Paul on the Church)
"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

---

Now THAT’S what I call AUTHORITY . . .

 

[Rolla]

I certainly can:

Matt. 18:18 (Jesus to his Church)
"Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

John 16:12-15** (Jesus to his Church)**
***"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. ***
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. ***He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. ***
Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. "

Luke 10:16 (Jesus to his Church)
"Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

1 Tim. 3:15 (St. Paul on the Church)
"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

---

Now THAT’S what I call AUTHORITY . . .

It’s always the same verses you stand alone to push your agenda. Use the full context of Scripture. You can’t because your agenda falls like a house of cards.

 

[KathleenGee]

Right now, it looks like people are needing to take a break.

 

[guanophore]

And you can’t prove a word of any of these proclamations and neither can your magisterium.

They belong to the Apostolic faith. They are not matters of science, subject to puny human proofs, but part of the revelation by God of Himself to mankind.

You can’t “prove” most of the articles of our faith.

It’s a matter of the foundation of the Reformation by Martin Luther. What gives with you?

What “gives”, Rolla, is that what you appear to think is a “matter of the foundation” is, in Truth, an error. The Church has never taught, did not then, and does not now, the “sale” of grace, in any form. There have been wolves among the sheep that have committed such heinous abuses against the flock, but it is against the teaching of the church.

 

[guanophore]

Is name calling an acceptable practice in this forum?

No, but one can refer to positions taken and the contents of posts as pathetic rubbish. That does not make such an assertion true, of course, but it certainly may be an accurate description in some cases.

T’here has been a great deal of pungent organic matter posted here on CAF, and your posts certainly make a good contribution to the pile.

 

[guanophore]

It is for some especially this person. It continues on without reprimand or further incident.

We would not know if another member got a reprimand, as they are given privately.

If you wish to report a post, use the little red and white triangle above to the right top of the post. The mods will review your complaint, and take appropriate action.

What was it you found offensive?

 

[pablope]

And you can’t prove a word of any of these proclamations and neither can your magisterium.

And the 33000 protestant denominations can?

 

[guanophore]

It’s always the same verses you stand alone to push your agenda. Use the full context of Scripture. You can’t because your agenda falls like a house of cards.

How do any of the other Scriptures invalidate the authority of the Church that is referenced in these passages?

 

[elvisman]

It’s always the same verses you stand alone to push your agenda. Use the full context of Scripture. You can’t because your agenda falls like a house of cards.

Hey - if you can prove me wrong - that the Church ISN’T all of these things - then I’m all ears. The problem is that the Word of God doesn’t lie - even though some people on this thread have chosen to do just that. . .

 

[pablope]

… … By their fruit … you will know them.

Yep…Martin Luther…33000 denoms and counting…each with a different flavor, disunity, fracturing…each a pope of their own.

On the CC…the council of trent…reforms, a stronger CC, more discernment in the selection of papal successors.

Yep…you do indeed know them by their fruits.

 

[jnpl1185]

If asking people to present evidence for their ridiculous claims about the Church is disrespectful - then let me be guilty.

If all you and 1voice do is dance around the issues - then your posts speak for themselves. I have asked ALL of you to present one, single, solitary shred of documented evidece for your claims and so far - none of you has been able to do so. If this is what you call “disrespect”, then maybe a debate forum is not the right place for you to be spending your time.

Firing off one accusation after another about the Church is easy** - until somebody demands proof . . .

Excuse me, what accusation did I make in particular? I have asked questions and cleared up misconceptions about Luther. I’ve said nothing against the Church that I recall. You are grouping me together with the other people you are arguing with. I have not identified with anyone else here. If anyone is not reading the posts, it is you, my friend.

 

[jnpl1185]

This is one of the concepts that departs from the Apostolic TEaching. The Apostles taught that we are not to walk according to the flesh, and to live with “dung” in us for this lifetime is not God’s intention for us. He wants us to be Holy, as He is Holy. He did not carry “dung” in Himself during this life. When he came to free us from sin, and the consequences of sin, it is not only for eternal life, but this life as well. I don’t think Luther believed that sanctity was really possible. Most of the children of the Reformation seem to think it is “necessary” for us to sin, but this is not true.

Well, a lot of it comes down to whether or not you believe that concupiscence is sinful. Many Protestants do. It is also a misconception that Luther did not think there was free will in any shape (see the Augsburg Confession and On the Bondage of the Will), but that our capacity to do good on our own without God is non-existent. This RCs believe as well as I understand it–we are dependent on God’s infusion of grace in our acts to make them holy in his sight. For ML, real sanctity does not come in this life but seemingly (this is not 100% clear from his writings, from what I have read) at the instant of justification. This does not necessarily mean we will not be held accountable for our sins.

Also, certainly we can avoid sin as Lutherans–at least some sins. Luther’s “sin boldly” comment has to be taken in context and with an understanding of his tendency to exaggerate for effect. The point of this was that Faith is what ultimately justifies. Not that we can do whatever we want, as there are many passages where Luther laments the sinfulness of those around him after the break from the Church. Is sanctity possible for Luther? Not without God’s grace. But this is nothing new to Catholics. Lutherans should do everything they can to come into a fuller, more living faith by good works, and this living faith is reckoned as righteousness by God, as Abraham’s faith was as well.

It is also the case for Luther, however, that some sins may be committed even without our knowing because concupiscence and the devil are sneaky. So to consider ourselves Holy by our acts is sheer arrogance in his view, because sometimes you don’t even know what evils you are harbouring in your own heart. So in this sense, maybe it is “necessary” to sin, but not in the sense I fear you are implying, which is that we are free to commit the sins which we *could *have prevented.